America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?

There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There's been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don't burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.

Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.

The "net neutrality" rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.

The FCC shouldn't burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

I think net neutrality makes sense in concept, but I don't know a lot of detail about what regulation would be necessary to make it happen--and what side effects such regulation might bring.

However, it's clear that AT&T and other ISPs are threatened by net neutrality because it removes their "gatekeeper" power. I think service providers are struggling to find their place in the Internet world going forward. They want to continue to be the ones controlling how much it costs to access the Internet, the speed of communications, etc. By doing that, they can build a business model of allowing sites with the deepest pockets the fastest traffic.

In the end, it's a social question. Is everyone entitled to the same speed and access level? Will society be hurt if the smaller guys are crowded out?

America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?

Huh, and all this time I thought carrier locked phones were LIMITING my choices..

Huh, and all this time I thought carrier locked phones were LIMITING my choices.

Yeah, I see a small number of internet service providers (many with built-in monopolies on the wires that carry their service to my house) and I'd prefer they NOT be freee to decide what I can watch, where I can browse, or how slowly their signal will go to that server. I'm pro net-neutrality. It might have some unwanted side effects, but so will lack of regulation.

One of the biggest downsides to *not* being net neutral is that it seems that the US will further diverge from the direction other countries are going. Other countries seem to be making great strides getting more people online. In the US, your access to the Internet may depend which side of the street your house is on. Population numbers are not on the US's side, so I think anything that brings quality broadband to everyone--regardless of geography--is a good thing. Net neutrality seems to be in line with this objective.

Contrast the views of AT&T with those of Finland, who recently declared that broadband access is an inalienable right. Linky.

Doesn't net neutrality just keep AT&T from, for example, giving hulu.com bandwith priority over netflix.com, if hulu.com pays them. This seems like mindless boilerplate language that can be thrown at any kind of regulation.

The United States is in the middle of the global pack on broadband infrastructure and is forging a very different upgrade path than the rest of the world, according to a new report (PDF) by Harvardís Berkman Center for Internet & Society. The report was commissioned by the Federal Communications Commission, as part of its mandate under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to create a new plan for national broadband access and improvement.
...
Among the key findings of the report, the Berkman Center confirmed previous studies that put the U.S. in the third quintile (i.e., ranking in the middle fifth of all countries) of broadband penetration, usage, available speeds, and pricing of Internet connectivity.

In addition, the U.S. is forging its own way in government regulation, leaving competition to existing monolithic providers; in most American markets, you can choose between your cable provider or your DSL provider for wired broadband. Other countries in the study, which covered members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, use a stricter regulatory regime that forces open access to broadband infrastructure, which in turn generally creates competition on the same set of physical wires.

Heavy Internet users in the U.S. who donít wish to have an obsessive desire to move to Asia should probably skip reading this report, so they can continue to live in happy ignorance; broadband access there is blisteringly fast and pathetically cheap. Most European countries also beat the United States in availability of public Wi-Fi access points. (Anecdotally, Iíve heard for years that the U.S. is the best place to find free Wi-Fi, especially compared to popular conference cities like Geneva; I havenít yet read deeply enough into the report to find a measurement on this.)

Finally, in general, Americans pay through the nose for fast Internet connections, but weíre in the global average for dial-up and lower speed fixed access.

The FCC is expected to base future rulings upon the conclusions in this report, and is soliciting public comment on its findings.

An AT&T executive has asked employees to post opposition to net neutrality rules being considered by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on an FCC Web site using their personal e-mail addresses, prompting accusations of unfair advocacy by an opposing group.
People who read this also read:

The AT&T letter, sent this week by Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs, asks employees to go to OpenInternet.gov and use a personal e-mail address to join the discussion forum there.

The letter then gives five talking points that AT&T employees can use to argue against net neutrality in the days leading up to Thursday’s FCC meeting, in which the agency is expected to take the first steps toward developing formal net neutrality rules.

The letter is a “kind of astroturfing,” the act of creating fake grassroots opposition to an issue, said Tim Karr, campaign director for Free Press, a media reform advocacy group and net neutrality supporter.